Discussions

General J2EE: Lingo doubt

Bookmark and Share Get thread feed

  1. Lingo doubt (4 messages)

    Hello All, Please tell me what is the difference of the Spring implementation of the JMS and Lingo? As far as I have read, Lingo is the way to implement the JMS in the IOC way. Then where does the Spring implementation of JMS fails? Can't we directly use the JMS which Spring has provided us? Thanks and advance, Suhas Shahapurkar
    Reply to this

    Threaded Messages (4)

  2. Re: Lingo doubt[ Go to top ]

    Jenks is JMS POJO implementation for consuming and send JMS messages. Is close to spring implementation, but diferent features. Lingo is a remote method call, using the JMS to make the remote call, like RMI. Is a remote method call.
    Reply to this Reply to original

  3. Re: Lingo doubt[ Go to top ]

    Thanks for the quick reply. I have seen one application where jencks is used with Lingo. I think this is used for the performance enhancements. I have read from http://lingo.codehaus.org/Using+JCA?print=1 When implementing the server side with Lingo you probably want high performance JMS subscription - to use a thread pool and to support parallel processing of inbound messages as well as pooling JMS connections, sessions and handling transactions and XA. The way to do this efficiently with JMS is to use a JCA Container such as Jencks. I was thinking can this purpose be achieved by the messaging server for example Active MQ? Thanks again for your quick answer Regards Suhas S
    Reply to this Reply to original

  4. Re: Lingo doubt[ Go to top ]

    "I was thinking can this purpose be achieved by the messaging server for example Active MQ?" JCA and JMS aren't the same.
    Reply to this Reply to original

  5. Re: Lingo doubt[ Go to top ]

    1. RTFM. 2. Search the Lingo and Jencks mailing list. 3. Their implementations are totally different and the APIs in use are different. It's all explained in the Spring docs & Javadoc and Lingo docs, Javadoc, and mailing list. It's very easy information to come by.
    Reply to this Reply to original